Talk:Resident Evil: Afterlife/Archive 1

Creation of this Article

This page was created as the film has been officially announced and filming has already started unlike the previous times it was created.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Good interview(s) to look through:

• http://www.fearnet.com/news/interviews/b19090_lsquoresident_evil_afterlife_set_visit.html
• http://www.collider.com/2010/04/20/resident-evil-afterlife-set-visit-collider-goes-to-toronto-and-watches-milla-jovovich-kick-umbrellas-ass/ Mike Allen 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cast list and summaries

I have altered this list to exclude the over-abundant references to the video games. The repetitive use of "Based on the character from 'such-and-such' game" was extremely redundant, as it's a well established fact from the rest of the article that the story and characters are based on the video game franchise. Also, seeing as how the films and the games do not follow the same continuity, it is inaccurate and misleading to cite the games for the film characters' bios. The character names accompanying the summaries still link to the video game character articles, that should be more than sufficient. Furthermore, the official site for RE:Afterlife is now fully up and running. It features information regarding several of the main characters, much of which I have incorporated into the summaries with my edit. Zargabaath (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Mike Allen 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why Guillory's name shouldn't be on the cast list in the main reference box. She's a major name portraying a major character (not to mention, reprising her role). There are behind-the-scenes and trailer images of Guillory/Jill/Bird Lady cycling the web. How is it that Boris Kodjoe and Spencer Locke are considered leads, but Guillory as Jill isn't? Zargabaath 15:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)

Because we don't know yet if she's going to be a starring character or a fan pleasing cameo. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

She is playing the Bird Lady persona, brainwashed by Wesker to act as a field commander for Umbrella's troops. This was revealed by Paul Anderson at a conference held in Japan. I would link the video, but it's since been yanked from Youtube. And, as it seems that this information is being deliberately snuffed in the US, I guess the article will have to remain as it is for the time being. Zargabaath 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)

Hmm. Sounds like something that will likely get published after the release (the fact that info about her appearance was kept on the super down low). I've been keeping an eye out for sources we could use talking about her appearance but I'll make a point of watching for information about spoilers regarding her appearance being kept low key as well. May be useful for development section down the road. Also, thanks for the info generally speaking. That must be the youtube video that was already pulled by the time I got my google alert on the search. I'd been wondering what that was. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Zargabaath, that borders original research for us to view that video (I've seen it and Bloody Disgusting and other websites reported it, but they took down those reports the next day) and come to that conclusion. It could be just one scene. We don't know. The fact that she has not been in any interviews suggest (by Wikipedia standards) that's she does not have a starring role. Boris Kodjoe and Spencer Locke have been in interviews. Here's Kodjoe's description, "An ex-pro basketball player and the leader of the survivors of Los Angeles". Maybe she'll do an interview before the film is released! :) Mike Allen 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's alright, I get it, and I understand original research. I just thought I'd mention it because I was actually at the conference and Paul Anderson explained it. When I wrote my original comment, I was unaware that all of the videos of the discussions would be pulled before anyone else had the chance to see them (though I guess it makes sense since recording devices were banned). And as I said before, for some reason the studio is trying to quash all info regarding Jill's role (they've now even requested that behind-the-scenes photos be removed from sites). Until further information, if any, surfaces, I suppose I agree with you... On a different note, I guess I was unaware that it was a Wikipedia standard that an actor must have done an interview prior to a film's release in order to prove that they play a significant part in that film. I apologize. Zargabaath 15:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that they have to have done an interview it's just that we have nothing official to go on and a cast interview is a great source for official news on their role (director interviews work just fine). Since the franchise has such devoted fans (and hey I'm totally one of them) it's easy to let rumors run amok. Some of those rumors will turn out to be well-founded and some of them will turn out to be fan cruft. I'm wondering, though, why no press that was at the event has reported on Anderson's statements. Curiouser and curiouser. What was the date of the conference? I'll add it to my google search alerts and see if anything turns up. Probably whatever I find will be in Japanese and I won't understand it but here's hoping. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully aware, and I agree that rumors can be a big problem. Again, when I commented originally I didn't know evidence to support my statements would soon be so hard to come by. Anyway, the conference was back in May. I actually happened upon this excerpt from Kotaku.com regarding what I was talking about... http://kotaku.com/5549932/first-look-at-jill-valentine-in-new-resident-evil-movie. I'm not expecting that it can be referenced or anything; obviously, Anderson's exact statements are not detailed. Just saying that the info is (or was) out there. Zargabaath 18:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)

Jill Valentine

She's not in the movie (not even in a flashback). I'm taking her out of the cast. IMDB.com is wrong, and so is the source. Besides, reliable sources aren't so reliable anymore since most critics believe this is the third movie in the franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.110.231 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. She's listed in the film credits. Go see the movie.Luminum (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And the producers confirmed she's Jill and talked about her return at ComicCon. - Theimperial (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One more source, why not? [1]Luminum (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you run out of the theater when it was done? Mike Allen 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lol, I may have walked out after they butchered Wesker, my bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.98.198.201 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC) She's in - the (short) scene cuts in approximately a minute or two after the credits start. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wesker "parachuting" into the water

Is this part of the plot, "During the explosion, a parachute falling from the sky goes unnoticed by Alice, Claire, and Chris, hinting that Wesker may still be alive." really needed? I don't remember seeing this and it appears it's speculation on forums (some say they saw it, some say they didn't). If it goes unnoticed to the characters, then it goes unnoticed to the viewers. It sounds like WP:OR to me. What are other people opinions on this? Mike Allen 23:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen the film 3 times, and it does indeed happen. Right after the explosion, you see a figure diving away from the helicopter. A few moments later as the camera is showing the view out of the storm drain, just before Luther is revealed to be alive, you can clearly see Wesker in the distance, drifting down on a chute. It was more of an easter egg than anything, but in my mind, still relevant to the plot, so I re-worded the paragraph so that it fits better and doesn't seem as fanboyish. Zargabaath 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)

Please stop adding the soundtrack cover

.. It is not needed as it offers nothing valuable to the article. It's the same image as the non-free poster. One non-free image is enough on an article and it fails WP:FUC #8. The infobox is really not need either. Perhaps it should be removed to help prevent editors from asserting the image there? Mike Allen 04:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult for editors acting in good faith to know the image was deliberately removed rather than left out because no one has added it yet. Having your above note is a good idea. I added an ALT tag to the non-image by way of explanation, but an additional comment in that infobox might be a good idea. I think removing the soundtrack album infobox altogether would not be a good idea. The whole image usage policy would be a lot clearer and less ambiguous if copyright images just were not allowed at all, the rare exceptions are confusing and misleading. -- Horkana (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's no clear legal definition of what is "fair use". One day copyrighted material will not be allowed at all here. I don't see how adding Alice helps the reader understand the article, she's already in the poster and there is a free image of the actress. Mike Allen 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Noted reference to the first film

When Luther was revealed to have survived, it was in reference to "Chad Kaplan" in the first film, who had a similar initial death. RagnarH (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"When I first got the script, I thought it was a practical joke" says Mr. Miller

An IP deleted this from the reception, "When I first got the script, I thought it was a practical joke," Mr. Miller says in the film’s press notes. He’s probably not the only one. (which is quoted from the New York Times), claiming it's "misleading" and "untrue". No it's not, they got that quote directly from the official Resident Evil: Afterlife production notes, which can be found online. Thanks Mike Allen 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this quote is a bit misleading. Also when reading for the first time doesn't really make sense and would be especially so if you don't know the names of the actors in the film. Is it really necessary? Shaunthered (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Mike Allen 00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some people really hated the film. That is not misleading, that is an opinion. That opinion is not only WP:VERIFY but also WP:NOTABLE because The New York Times is a well respected source. There are no good reasons to remove that piece of information, especially if an editor fails to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and make an effort to explain why that information should not be included. -- Horkana (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it was about "oh it's a negative opinion, we can't show it", it was about that it didn't make any sense in the context. I moved it the the talk page, so it wasn't "deleted". Mike Allen 01:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike, respect. I don't disagree with you. It's hassle but I think the point can be cleaned up and included. Cleanup is a pain in the ass though, especially when the original point was fairly vague and a bit obtuse.

It wasn't well phrased, but it was safe to assume Miller wasn't openly criticizing the film he was a part of (although that would be WP:NOTABLE in a different way if he really was) and the reviewer was deliberately slanting a quote out of context to make her point and emphasize how she disliked the film.

My point is not to disagree with the substance but to insist that editors rephrase rather than delete comments they disagree with. I enjoyed the film but it had flaws and I think negative reviews are important to both say what was bad but also highlight what even the negative reviewers saw as good points of the film. I'm asking for a good faith effort to rephrase to fit what the reviewer said and reduce the supposed ambiguity that other editor saw (even if personally I think it was entirely subjective). I'm also STRONGLY against deletion by any editor who fails to show good faith and follow the very WP:SIMPLE basic politeness of providing an edit summary. Of course Mike did that but the earlier editor did not. I hate to see poorly justified deletions. If you want to keep it here on the talk page I'll discuss before adding it back but hopefully we can find a better wording. -- 01:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cannibalizing John Carpenter’s “Thing” and much of the sci-fi-horror canon, “Afterlife” is more moribund than its thronging undead. “When I first got the script, I thought it was a practical joke,” Mr. Miller says in the film’s press notes. He’s probably not the only one.

The article gives little context to Millers remarks, giving no real explanation what exactly he found ridiculous, and it was only mention so that the reviewer could further criticize the film but that low quality bit of journalism is not invalid but seriously in need of very good writing to put it in context and mitigate (rather than deny/delete) the inherent Point of View (POV). -- Horkana (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort and it does help but why keep something that isn't needed. We know the reviewer has given the film a negative review from what has been said previously and anyone can read the full review. It is still misleading as it still implies Miller thought the script was a joke, then you have to explain about prison break. Just because an editor decided to quote this one particular section doesn't mean we are fixed by it, we could use numerous quotes, personally I think the first sentence of the review would be better. We haven't actually deleted the full quote anyway; just part of it which doesn't change its meaning. Shaunthered (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give the context the article fails to provide? Your suggestion that Miller thought it was a joke because it was like another "Prison Break" if properly supported might be worth mentioning in the Casting section. The quote could just as easily mean he found some other aspect of the script to be amusing, if you look at the bit i quoted and read it literally he could be saying he found the quantity of undead to be a joke.

Taking a look at it again the quote is an unimportant detail of that section and it could go but the section would benefit from an overhaul rather than tweaking of such details. Although not as inflammatory and less confusing the quote about the film being like watching paint is not essential either.
What really needs to happen is to use a selection of reviews to not just list the opinions of a few critics but to give an overall view of what the consensus was on various aspects of the film, like how most reviewers disliked the plot, or how the look/design was praised, or perhaps if reviewers thought the 3D filming was any good etc. It's a lot harder to write a really good critical response section like that though. -- Horkana (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer more than one source but it is clear the joke Miller was referring to was being in prison again. Feel free to change the Critical response section and add something in the casting section instead. -- Horkana (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Budget

Many sources are very lazy about their information and parrot details picked up elsewhere. The-Numbers is better than most and does make more of an effort, they also make it clear that in most cases they are working based on information in the LA Times.

In the case of this film Resident Evil: Afterlife the LA Times says "nearly $60" million, but most other sources lazily say $60 million. The Numbers is one of the very few to be more specific and say $57.5 million. Far too many editors mistake quantity for quality.

Variety is inconsistent. One article claims the budget was $60 million a later article is more specific (see the named reference "Varietyboxoffice") and includes the following quote

Budgeted at $52 million, "Afterlife" reunites thesps Milla Jovovich and Ali Larter

User:Prem555 particularly fails to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and does not provide edit summaries. User:Prem555 seems to other editors edit summaries, and ignore messages on his talk page. I do not want to go through the process of having him blocked, not all his edits are bad, just misguided and mildly annoying (failing to spell [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil:_Afterlife&diff=389894699&oldid=389894591 Jovovich] is just one example). I urge other editors to be very cautious about allowing these edits to slip through unchecked. Check his Talk page, I'm not the only one who has noticed a pattern of disruptive edits. -- Horkana (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo provides the Budget figure at $60mil. [2] --Hanaichi 05:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Box Office Mojo, familiar enough to have lost confidence in it. They frequently post rounded figures when more specific figures exist. They are slow to update as correct even after correct figures become available. The LA Times and The-Numbers are just more credible sources. Variety are not consistent, that they later claim a lower figure might indicate tax rebates, it is overly simple to keep claiming the box office is $60 million. We already move as newer more accurate information becomes available, the box office gross figures update frequently and Box Office Mojo and The Numbers often vary, one sometimes publishing the figures ahead of the other. Similarly Box Office Mojo might catch up but for now The Numbers has more credible figures.

(It was not the first but the final example that made me give up on Box Office Mojo was Kick-Ass, they round up to $30 million when interviews with the director clearly state $28 million, when asked sterling or US dollars he makes it clear the film cost "exactly $28 million".

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources lists both Box Office Mojo and The Numbers as reliable. Both are equally credible and are used by all users. I'll ask them for help on which is better to use, or what do to. --Hanaichi 07:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times says "under $60 million", the only logical source to go by would be the $57.5 million source, which is from The Numbers. Like Horkana has presented, BOM always rounds it up; I guess they prefer even numbers? Variety reports a different figure from each of their reports, which proves they have no clue about it. Mike Allen 07:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just put a range of the budget? This has done before e.g. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. BOVINEBOY2008 07:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually plenty of movie articles does that. I wouldn't mind. But its really just between two figures. Neither site is more credible then the other.

The guidelines are generalisations. You can claim Box Office Mojo is credible as much as you like but they really do round to nearest figures and I'm telling you they have clearly made mistakes before. I cannot disprove a negative, but I ask you to be skeptical. The guidelines will probably catch up eventually if we are lucky. -- Horkana (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Under $60mil could very well be more then $57.5 mil. I'm just saying its wiser to not rule out $60mil cause its a round figure. --Hanaichi 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now added sources from The New York Times and LA Times which state that the buget is $60 million and "nearly $60 million". There is no policy that would favor using The Numbers as a source ahead of a publication such as The New York Times. Budget figures are usually rounded because the majority are estimates, so an accurate figure is impossible to attain unless there is an official statement about the budget. Budget ranges are often included on film articles because it is impossible to choose one source ahead of another without violating WP:NPOV when there are multiple sources for a different figure. At the moment The Numbers seems to be the only source quoting this $57.5 million figure, so if we are going to include it as range like on other articles, there really needs to be another source to validate The Numbers estimate, otherwise the $60 million figure should just be included on its own. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've preferred to find reports of the budget in periodicals and not movie websites, so if The New York Times and Los Angeles Times says it's around $60 million, I agree with Betty that it's the best approximate figure. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A budget range is a lame compromise - entirely in keeping with Wikipedia policy, but definitely suboptimal, but I'm seriously unimpressed at properly sourced information being deleted and discussions here being ignored. Citing a quality film journal of good reputation would certainly be preferable. It is very hard to believe other sources are not parroting the earlier estimates. As Variety contradicted itself first claiming $60 million and later $52 million (see above) I do not see how they can be taken seriously and must discount them as a source in this disputed case.

The New York Times (September 12, 2010) is vague and says "about $60 million", echoing the Los Angeles Times (September 9, 2010) when they said "nearly $60 million". This does not contradict but lend credibility to the more specific figure from The Numbers. At the very least anyone who wants to use the $60 million figure must clearly indicate it is a rough or "estimated" figure. For now I'll suffer the lame compromise of providing a range of figures but it is seriously disappointing to again see a consensus of mediocrity. -- Horkana (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Numbers is an extremely poor source for budget information. While you expect sources to differ from source to source given the nature of estimates, and the fact that such estimates can change over a period of time, you don't expect internal inconsistencies within the same piece of work. The Numbers often gives figures that are inconsistent with the sources it provides for them which straight away raises concerns over its fact checking. It either updates its figures without updating its sources or it is actually falsifying data. In this case The Numbers doesn't even state what it's using as a source making it possible to ascertain whether it is providing valid information. Betty Logan (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone found the production notes? That might help settle this once and for all, we end up doing the research most of the journalists didn't bother doing. The article for Resident_Evil:_Extinction includes production notes but I haven't been able to find them yet for this film. -- Horkana (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've found some a German language document that says (on Page 12) filming in Toronto began September 26 although. This is close to the September 29 date quoted in the article at the moment. Not found the production notes yet unfortunately. -- Horkana (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@Betty, The-Numbers does cite the budget source as being the LA Times. They usually do cite the budget source (unlike BOM). I'm for using multiple sources, like it is now.

@Horkana, I found the production notes hosted on some upload site. I can't find it now.. but don't remember it citing the budget. Mike Allen 04:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So if The Number is citing the LA Times as its source for the 57.5 million figure, and the LA Times doesn't actually give the 57.5 million figure then why is The Numbers saying it and why are we just using it? Betty Logan (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the figure that uses The Numbers as a source. The Numbers uses this LA Times article as its source. However, the LA Times article does not back up the figure that The Numbers claims. If The Numbers uses this article as its source then it's good practise and keeping with Wikipedia policy to use the original source: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Betty Logan (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and do not see this as a case of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. They are doing much like what we do, providing more than one source to show their figure is credible and that they are not just plucking the number directly out of the sky even and though they are being more specific, without exactly explaining how they got the more specific figure. If I were writing WP:PROSE such as the "box office" section of an Wikipedia article or writing for a newspaper I would probably round to the nearest million too, but the Infobox really should be more specific. You were wrong to remove it. I'm undecided what to do next, I may revert it again but you did leave the note indicating the $60 million is only estimated so I'll keep looking for better sources.

Since several people claim Production notes exist this article badly needs to reference them directly, not just for the budget questions. -- Horkana (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If this figure is an accurate figure then it must have been officially released at some point in a statement or something. If you can find a RS or something official to corroborate the number then fair enough, but given that concerns have been raised about The Numbers in the past as a reliable source, I really don't think we can accept this information when i) it seemingly contradicts its own source ii) no other RS backs up the figure iii) there is overwhelming consensus for another figure in other RSs. I actually do suspect The Numbers makes up its own figures, because it has an uncanny habit of citing the LA Times and then knocking off or adding on a few million. Unless there is a valid explanation for why it does that then we can't have full confidence in its ability to report information. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You were among the people talking about Production Notes it is a shame you do not have a link to them. You mention discussions questioning the reliability of The Numbers, I would be very interested to see them. The repeated failure of Box Office Mojo has certainly made me skeptical. -- Horkana (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Box Office Mojo either, and the production notes would be a perfectly adequate solution for me if they could be found. Given the lack of consensus over this whole issue, maybe it's better to pull all the budget information from the article until there is agreement over which sources to use – I don't see any special reason why my sources should stay in it while yours get pulled. Personally I think a whole rethink about how we approach budget information is needed on the film articles, because citing estimates is fundamentally different to citing box office i.e. box office numbers are concrete data that The Numbers can just publish, but with budgets either there has to be an official statement (so there must be a source of some kind) or an actual person has to formulate an estimate, in which case who? We've approached budgets like box office and I think that's been a mistake. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Found the production notes, but nothing about the budget (that I can see). Mike Allen 04:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wrap has information that helps clear up the confusing $52 million figure Variety gave.

Acquired for a reported $52 million by Sony for distribution in the U.S. and Canada, as well as select foreign markets, "Afterlife" was produced by Constantin Film, Davis-Films and Impact Pictures at a cost of around $60 million.

Again unfortunately the production budget is described non-specifically as "around $60 million"
We are in the process of improving the detail, there is absolutely no sense in deleting anything. Does anyone doubt doubts the budget is close to $60 million, no, of course not, but a more definitive specific figure would be better. -- Horkana (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Country

The guidelines for the country parameter at Template:Infobox film specifically state:

1. Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source.
2. The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie
3. Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality
4. If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in.

The new guidelines were drawn up precisely to stop the linking between nationalities and production companies and financing. These countries should be removed until you ensure they meet the criteria for being listed. It will be a shame if I have to put in an RfC to have the guidelines enforced, but that's what I will do if if the instructions continue to be ignored. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of deletionists have decided it would be better to have nothing in the country field than the slightly confusing mix of things most film articles have at the moment. This slash and burn approach fails to really WP:IMPROVE anything but it wouldn't be the first time some editors have decided to cut back and with the expectation that someone else will fix it. Even if this daft new policy is to be followed some kind of a comment should be left in the parameter to make it clear to other editors that it is intentionally left empty, otherwise editors will make a good faith effort to improve it and have their time wasted.

The rest of the Resident Evil series has consistently included Germany and the United Kingdom as the filming country, as they are made by Constantin Films (Germany) and director Paul W.S. Anderson is from the United Kindom. A mix of other countries have also been included although the rationale is less clear, this probably refers to associated studios and funding (rather than filming locations). If editors like User:Betty Logan are going to insist on deleting adequate but imperfect information it would be very odd not to remove it from all the films in the series but it does not seem at all like the best way to improve the articles. -- Horkana (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the guidelines I suggest you take it up on the Infobox talk page. But the case here is quite clear cut. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect to see you deleting the country field from all the films in the series if you really believe those guidelines are sensible. -- Horkana (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nationality can be perceived in many different ways - the production companies/where the film is made/the copyright country/the director's nationality, so to just add countries is misleading and ambiguous. Readers don't necessarily equate it with the location of production companies. There is going to be a bit of catch-up period so I'm not going to rampage through lots of articles before the regular editors have a chance to bring them into line. Since this article is on my watchlist I may as well take care of it while I'm here. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I read the discussion there's no need to repeat it. It is not well thought out at all. Removing information like this is not helpful. If you are not even going to do the same on the three other films in the series you are showing just how badly thought out the suggested guidelines are.

Editors will see this omission as inconsistent with the rest of the series and add the information right back again in good faith and you will be wasting their time and your own until you do something to improve this beyond a blank field. You should at the very least leave a hidden comment. -- Horkana (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave a note in the country field so misunderstandings are avoided. This is an active article so will be a good dry run for the revised guidelines. If they don't work then they will be dumped, but there is no point changing all the articles until they are tried out. Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Some further information: [http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2010/08/c9945.html "Resident Evil: Afterlife, a Canadian-German co-production produced by Constantin Film (Germany) and Davis Films/Impact Pictures (Canada)" Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Majini Executioner vs Nemesis Monster

Its not a major problem but I've noticed alot of edits changing the nemesis monster to majini execution several times. I know theres no reference to majini executioner in the film but I don't see why this can't be used; this is its name in the game (Resident Evil 5) which the monster is from and the films are based on the games. The name Nemesis (Resident Evil) Monster seems to have been used in reference to a different monster from Resident Evil 3 which to the best of my knowledge isn't refered to in the film neither. Just wanted to asks editors opinions as I don't think this is going to stop any time soon. Shaunthered (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That might be prohibited under WP:SYNTHESIS. It may be a natural (and correct) conclusion to draw to but not in keeping with Wikipedia practise. It may seem like a silly rule, but because film adaptations often change storylines if based on previously published work it's probably best to restrict descriptions to the film's universe only. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just found a source [3] were the director directly refers to the creature as 'the Executioner', would this be acceptable? Shaunthered (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. If the director is specifically discussing the film then I think that would probably be valid. You can try adding it in with the source, and it anyone objects you can always tweak the text to make it clear the monster's identity is confirmed by the director rather than in the film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was following the lead of other editors who removed the "Executioner" descriptions from the plot summary. I've no issue with them in the Cast list although I'd prefer if they were cited.

Drop the bit about Nemesis if you want but I was under the impression this monster was a development on from the Nemesis and wanted to describe it as a "monster" so an encyclopedia reader could make sense of it and also "Nemesis" so fans would have a slightly more specific in universe idea of what is going on.

This being Wikipedia and not the Resident Evil wiki the descriptions must first and foremost be clear to ordinary readers not necessarily familiar with the series. -- Horkana (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous wording said "Executor Majani" and I wondered why. From the Resident Evil Wiki it seems Majani is a particular type of infected person and Executioner refers to this particular axe wielding beast. Explaining the whole Majani thing is more detail than we need but it would be good to have some agreement to keep things as they are now with the "Executioner" explanation and not go into more detail than that without a very good reason. -- Horkana (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Majani" were, specifically, those in Africa infected with Las Plagas. Those infected in RE4 were referred to as "Los Ganados". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.179.78 (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

T-Virus

Is it notable that Alice got the virus again when she was stabbed in the final fight? 99.240.238.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

International setting

The Economist comments on how the use of international setting such as Japan is part of a deliberate move by Sony to increase international earnings. Not sure how to work that into the article so just noting it here for now. -- Horkana (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sequel

Could anyone explain why the sequel section has been moved to the series page? They might be a good reason for this that I'm not aware of but I think information regarding a possible direct sequel would be useful to readers on this page.Shaunthered (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not 100% sure, but it was done in this edit. —Mike Allen 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Does anyone object to this being moved back?Shaunthered (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sequel section because after thinking about it.. it does not make sense to have information on a sequel on two separate pages. It should remain on the film series page where all updates can be in one place. This is the route that most film articles that are in a film series/franchise takes. —Mike Allen 23:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead Letter Awards

Please do not delete these awards, as they are reputable online awards specifically for zombie related media. Thanks, --StephenN17 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi can you show how it's reputable and notable for Wikipedia, like do reliable sources discuss these awards? How does Milla Jovovich, Boris Kodjoe and TomandAndy receive the awards (mailed to them)? Thanks. —Mike Allen 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, The Dead Letter Awards were created by Mail Order Zombie and first began in 2009. The first site below, shows a press release for the awards and states that bands perform during these awards, proving it is a reputable awards show. The second site is from Facebook and is from a man called Jonathan Maberry who is a best selling zombie author who put on his facebook page that he had won the dead letter lifetime achievment award. I don't know how they receive the awards, but it says on their website that they give out awards such as the Rambler, which is given to those with a lifetime achievment award, so they must send the awards to the winners. Thanks,--StephenN17 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC) http://www.zedwordblog.com/2011/02/zed-word-nominated-for-dead-letter.html http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150104230286927&comments

In Google News and Books Search, I do not see any results for Dead Letter Awards. I think it's important to be able to find such results because it lends credibility to the awards. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, so without any results suggesting that Dead Letter Awards have weight, I would not reference them in film articles on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought we agreed Mike that the Dead Letter awards would stay. I provided sites which talked about the awards and I included a facebook page from someone who actually won one of the awards and referenced it on his facebook. I don't know why you've deleted them as they've been there since October. --StephenN17 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We did? Anyways like Eric pointed out no reliable, third party sources credits these awards. Thus they are not notable enough to be used in Wikipedia. —Mike Allen 06:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Resident Evil: Afterlife/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ashliveslove (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Article is well cited, referenced and well expanded with proper grammar. I'm hereby in favor of this article being a GA. Please feel free to add any faults or improvement needed if you find any. ASHU^IND 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections since nominated, its been a month from the date. Providing GA status. ASHU^IND 10:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Final Analysis

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Not much concerns here. ASHU^IND

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No such concerns here. Article has been searched thoroughly for such references. ASHU^IND

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All such aspects have been covered. ASHU^IND 11:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fine here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are proper till the review date and well captioned. ASHU^IND 11:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: